RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[otg]

So, why in the world did the sitting judge 'recuse' himself from the case???
And a "retired" judge will be on the bench? What in the world is this about......

from the article......
"Retired Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach will preside over the hearing after Boulder District Judge Andrew Hartman recused himself from the case."

Recused? A typo or a new word as a result of hybridizing the word 'rescue' and 'excuse'?

I've been trying to find out why Judge Hartman would feel compelled to recuse himself from this case. I've even written to the author of the story (Mitchell Byars) asking him about it. (I'll let you know if I ever hear back anything -- so far, I haven't.) It is very unusual for a judge to do this simply because they are acquainted with someone involved in the case. Hartman was an adjunct professor at CU, where one of the attorneys (Marianne "Mimi" Wesson) representing Charlie Brennan also teaches. I don't think a simple association like that would be enough to warrant recusal.

Other possible associations I found are:

• Possibly a relationship (though I'm not certain of the exact kinship) to Barrie Hartman, former editor at The Boulder Daily Camera, who became personally involved in the investigation of the woman from California who made claims of abuse at the hands of members of an alleged "pedo ring".
• Possible relationship to Todd Hartman, a reporter at The Rocky Mountain News.

These possible associations don't seem to me enough to warrant recusal (disqualification from participation in a legal proceeding). The U.S. Judicial Code provides standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding."

This little tidbit from the article is very intriguing. It smacks of the same incestuous relationships between lawyers that have plagued this case from the very start.

​

Maybe SuperDave might know something, or be able to shed a little light on who this Judge Hartman is, or why he would recuse himself.

And a P.S. to mods:
Please unlock the thread where this discussion belongs:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222381&page=12

 

[gramcracker]

the details they mentioned had a purpose. JR took melatonin = he was sleeping soundly. JB was carried to her bed, asleep = there was no interaction between the kids that night, and she didn't eat anything. JB would never go downstairs by herself at night = the kids' actions/interactions were always supervised by the parents

JB was described as intelligent and outgoing and the pageants instilled confidence. yet she was a 6-year-old who didn't feel at ease moving around in her own home among her immediate family? if that is true, why? if that is not true, why lie about it?

something happened. BR went back to bed. PR found JB mortally wounded and it was not a normal household accident, and what she saw told her that her son was responsible. the jab with the stick was a feminine thing. Linda Wilcox said PR's major job was to make sure nobody annoyed JR. PR initiated the staging by cleaning JB's body and dressing her in the size 12s (PR would never put that size on her in RL = distancing from the act). they were arguing fiercely. PR wanted the tape on the mouth and the cords on the wrists = ineffectual staging (decoration, like the pink fairy streamers all over the elementary school). JR vehemently disagreed, which is why removing the tape and one of the wrist cords was the first thing he did. his main contribution was deciding on and using the ligature and, in a perverse way, he was proud of it because (he thought) it was the only truly professional touch. the father who loved the child acted on the urge to put her out of her misery, and to create a cause of death unrelated to the head bash because they both loved the child who was responsible for that. JR wanted to move the body out of the house but PR wouldn't allow it. they avoided each other the next day because they couldn't stand the sight of each other. he didn't think she could dial it back enough not to arouse suspicion (he was right). JR (who actively caused the death) began speaking to an atty four hours after the discovery and hired him two hours after that

(911 tape) BR: please, what do I do? JR: (angrily) we are not speaking to you! BR: what DID you find?

 

[UKGuy]

the details they mentioned had a purpose. JR took melatonin = he was sleeping soundly. JB was carried to her bed, asleep = there was no interaction between the kids that night, and she didn't eat anything. JB would never go downstairs by herself at night = the kids' actions/interactions were always supervised by the parents

JB was described as intelligent and outgoing and the pageants instilled confidence. yet she was a 6-year-old who didn't feel at ease moving around in her own home among her immediate family? if that is true, why? if that is not true, why lie about it?

something happened. BR went back to bed. PR found JB mortally wounded and it was not a normal household accident, and what she saw told her that her son was responsible. the jab with the stick was a feminine thing. Linda Wilcox said PR's major job was to make sure nobody annoyed JR. PR initiated the staging by cleaning JB's body and dressing her in the size 12s (PR would never put that size on her in RL = distancing from the act). they were arguing fiercely. PR wanted the tape on the mouth and the cords on the wrists = ineffectual staging (decoration, like the pink fairy streamers all over the elementary school). JR vehemently disagreed, which is why removing the tape and one of the wrist cords was the first thing he did. his main contribution was deciding on and using the ligature and, in a perverse way, he was proud of it because (he thought) it was the only truly professional touch. the father who loved the child acted on the urge to put her out of her misery, and to create a cause of death unrelated to the head bash because they both loved the child who was responsible for that. JR wanted to move the body out of the house but PR wouldn't allow it. they avoided each other the next day because they couldn't stand the sight of each other. he didn't think she could dial it back enough not to arouse suspicion (he was right). JR (who actively caused the death) began speaking to an atty four hours after the discovery and hired him two hours after that

(911 tape) BR: please, what do I do? JR: (angrily) we are not speaking to you! BR: what DID you find?

gramcracker,
Your narrative might be correct, who can say? Although I seriously doubt PR put those pants on JonBenet.

In my BDI the sequence of events goes something like this BR, PR, JR. I reckon everyone is underestimating BR's contribution towards the staging?

This is due to the consequent staging and its relevant importance within each RDI.


.

 

[midwest mama]

If PR put the size 12s on JB after cleaning her up, it narrows the ways the fibers from JRs shirt would have been found inside the panties.

1. The fibers were on JB prior to the cleansing and enough remained after to get in the crotch of the panties?
2. PR used JRs shirt.....what actions did she take to secure the shirt and why? It was wool...should not have been in the laundry chute unless clothing was sorted through by LHP or PR for the dry cleaning items.

No matter what, those shirt fibers found on a new pair of panties seem extremely incriminating of JR, IMO. Indirect transfer does not cut it for me. If JR was not on the scene in person then I have to think PR purposefully wanted him to be targeted. JMO.

 

[dodie20]

If PR put the size 12s on JB after cleaning her up, it narrows the ways the fibers from JRs shirt would have been found inside the panties.

1. The fibers were on JB prior to the cleansing and enough remained after to get in the crotch of the panties?
2. PR used JRs shirt.....what actions did she take to secure the shirt and why? It was wool...should not have been in the laundry chute unless clothing was sorted through by LHP or PR for the dry cleaning items.

No matter what, those shirt fibers found on a new pair of panties seem extremely incriminating of JR, IMO. Indirect transfer does not cut it for me. If JR was not on the scene in person then I have to think PR purposefully wanted him to be targeted. JMO.

unless, and I'm just throwing this out there, say LE was right about staging within staging...what if the scene was originally left 1 way, and on an investigation of the basement, JR decided to put the new underwear on JB...either because she wasn't wearing any or because hers needed replacing. moo

 

[dodie20]

gramcracker,
Your narrative might be correct, who can say? Although I seriously doubt PR put those pants on JonBenet.

In my BDI the sequence of events goes something like this BR, PR, JR. I reckon everyone is underestimating BR's contribution towards the staging?

This is due to the consequent staging and its relevant importance within each RDI.


.

I'm not convinced I'm underestimating BR's involvement with the staging, because IMO, it doesn't look like he was let in on a thing. He contradicted his parents on a few key points, so IMO, he seemed truly in the dark. For instance, he said JB was awake when they got home that night even though his parents said she was sound asleep, and he said he was awake for some of the morning activities, even though his parents claimed he slept through the whole ordeal. IMO, if his parents were helping him or had him helping them in any way, they would have drilled him on what to say. Seems like to me, he knew very little, maybe more than his parents thought, but was more of a bystander than a participant. moo

 

[renah]

On the enhanced 911 call, & assuming that it is his BR asking a question, is it known for sure whether BR said "what do I do" versus "what did I do" ?

Imo there is a big difference between the two as far as possible interpretation goes. TIA

 

[Linda7NJ]

On the enhanced 911 call, & assuming that it is his BR asking a question, is it known for sure whether BR said "what do I do" versus "what did I do" ?

Imo there is a big difference between the two as far as possible interpretation goes. TIA

IMO both are really really bad. Like REALLY bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Linda7NJ]

I wish we could get our hands on the testing results and report from Bode.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[UKGuy]

I'm not convinced I'm underestimating BR's involvement with the staging, because IMO, it doesn't look like he was let in on a thing. He contradicted his parents on a few key points, so IMO, he seemed truly in the dark. For instance, he said JB was awake when they got home that night even though his parents said she was sound asleep, and he said he was awake for some of the morning activities, even though his parents claimed he slept through the whole ordeal. IMO, if his parents were helping him or had him helping them in any way, they would have drilled him on what to say. Seems like to me, he knew very little, maybe more than his parents thought, but was more of a bystander than a participant. moo

dodie20,
mmm, well others have noticed this assymetry before and reach other conclusions.

In light of this I think I will amend my BDI so that it can it can become a RDI template.

There are questions regardless your RDI which require answers, so I think I'll edit my BDI so that it reflects the concerns of those that lean towards JDI or PDI.

Although I do not ascribe to one RDI or another I find BDI to be the most consistent.



.

 

[midwest mama]

unless, and I'm just throwing this out there, say LE was right about staging within staging...what if the scene was originally left 1 way, and on an investigation of the basement, JR decided to put the new underwear on JB...either because she wasn't wearing any or because hers needed replacing. moo

Iirc both the panties and lj's tested for urine which means means JR would have to have put them on prior to the the ligature strangulation when she would have released the urine.....unless he removed the lower body clothing after that, took off other panties then put the size 12s on with the lj's back over them and the 12s wicked the urine. Not likely IMO, but possible since the blood found in the panties were apparent and testable...??

 

[UKGuy]

Iirc both the panties and lj's tested for urine which means means JR would have to have put them on prior to the the ligature strangulation when she would have released the urine.....unless he removed the lower body clothing after that, took off other panties then put the size 12s on with the lj's back over them and the 12s wicked the urine. Not likely IMO, but possible since the blood found in the panties were apparent and testable...??

midwest mama,
Gotcha, size-6 underwear was bloodstained so had to be replaced. The rest is history, other than who did it, i.e. JR or BR?

Answers on a postcard to Websleuths Enterprises Washington State.


.

 

[FrayedKnot]

IMO both are really really bad. Like REALLY bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I thought it was "What did you find?" :waitasec:

 

[eileenhawkeye]

This website: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer8_gjtl.html has a detailed guide to the GJ, with what took place each day.

 

[Nom de plume]

In light of the new IDI/RDI rules this seemed like a good time to :bump: this thread.

 

[Darlene733510]

I find it interesting that Kane was seen entering the facility, and had a paper shredder with him. Why would they need a paper shredder?

 

[Landonsmom02]

In light of the new IDI/RDI rules this seemed like a good time to :bump: this thread.

So it had been a while since I listened to PR 911 call. I was searching on youtube and came upon one. IT was looped and supposedly she is heard saying "they're going to arrest me." Anyone else rememebr this? TIA

 

[Tawny]

So it had been a while since I listened to PR 911 call. I was searching on youtube and came upon one. IT was looped and supposedly she is heard saying "they're going to arrest me." Anyone else rememebr this? TIA

I heard this in one video I watched/listened to and I thought it was BR that had said it. More like "Are they going to arrest me?"

 

[Landonsmom02]

I heard this in one video I watched/listened to and I thought it was BR that had said it. More like "Are they going to arrest me?"

Interesting. I'll have to listen to it again. Is it against the rules to link that here?

 

[Tawny]

Interesting. I'll have to listen to it again. Is it against the rules to link that here?

I'm not sure. I've seen people post something and then report their own post to make sure it's ok.